Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

This is a reply to Alvaro’s mail but is actually directed to all IESG members that had comments on the document.

Thank for all of your comments. We (hopefully) addressed all of them in the revised I-D that has been just submitted.

I attach a RFCDiff to this mail so that you can easily check fixes.

Please let me know if we missed anything.

BTW, the document has also been changed from “informational” to “experimental”, as request during IESG review.

Have a nice weekend

ciao

Luigi

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 23:40, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This document is clearly requesting the assignment of LISP EID space for
> an experiment.  Why is it not an Experimental document?  [I may have
> missed the discussion in the archive.]
> 
> Along the same lines, the conditions for the experiment to be successful
> and the IETF to consider whether to transform the prefix into a permanent
> assignment (Section 6.  3+3 Allocation Plan) are not defined.  How should
> this decision be made?  How will the IETF know the experiment is
> successful?
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> An early allocation was made in October/2015.  The values should be
> included in the document.
> 
> The dates mentioned assumed a start date of December/2015, but the
> document isn't getting approved until now — is there a need to change the
> dates?  Just wondering — part of it is that I'm not sure if RIPE has
> already started allocating addresses or not.
> 
> Please expand ROA and put in a reference.
> 
>